The head of the Iraqiya candidate list, Iyad Allawi, believes that he won a majority of seats in the Iraqi Parliament, enabling him to head the government in Baghdad. The same belief has seized Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri, who also believes that he won a majority of seats in Lebanon's legislature, and that this would give him the opportunity to govern happily in Beirut. However, the “invention” of the national unity government in Lebanon deprived Hariri of this opportunity. A precedent was created in the history of the world's governments: something called “opposition ministers.” Something similar was “invented” in the understanding among Iraqi parliamentary blocs following the polls, as a way of getting around how Iraqis voted, and the majority support received by Allawi. It became natural for this understanding to favor the interest of pro-Iranian Shiite blocs, and we see the repercussions of this today. Thus, Nuri al-Maliki has visited Tehran, for the first time since Iraq's parliamentary elections in March, in a bid to crown this understanding. The visit is also meant to crown the understandings that have preceded it, such as that between the State of Law list, and the Revolutionary Guards in Iran, along with the Sadrists in Iraq, and who would be assumed to give al-Maliki the opportunity to return happily to the prime minister's post, despite the criticisms that have been made, and continue to be made, about his tenure in office. Al-Maliki's visit to Tehran is no less important than the visit by Mahmud Ahmadinejad to Beirut. In both cases, the message to concerned parties was clear. They were informed who has the most powerful voice when it comes to influence and decision-making regarding the two most important issues in the region: Iraq and Lebanon. In both cases, we have come to learn, after experience, that the force holding sway is that of Iran, represented by those who carry out its recommendations on the ground. They do not assign any weight to the democratic process, or the interests of national accord. They are indeed “forces.” Since they are thus, considerations of force alone are what secure the opportunity for them to impose their interests on the ground. Is it reasonable to wait for a force that has no truck with democracy in its country to be determined to see democracy hold sway in other countries? At the least, this is what Iyad Allawi has concluded following his recent efforts to convince countries concerned with Iraq, including Iran, that his bloc had the constitutional right to form a Cabinet. The conclusion reached by Allawi is that Iran should avoid intervening in Iraqi affairs, and that it should not support or impose one Iraqi party at the expense of others. If Saad Hariri, the Lebanese prime minister, were in a position to speak freely about his experience in government in recent months, after the painful process of forming his government, his comments would not differ much from those of Allawi: Iran must exit the Lebanese political process and cease to provide support and armed force to one of the sides in Lebanon, at the expense of the others. The same might be said by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, when it comes to discussing his difficult relations with Hamas. It is difficult to talk about the rising Iranian influence over these issues without mentioning the decline in the influence of other forces, which are those with an Arab identity and affiliation. Experience teaches us that nature abhors a vacuum, and that disintegration in Lebanon, and the state's surrender to its fate should have been compensated for by the stronger side, which found the political arena inviting and took it over. The same thing can be said about Iraq. After the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime and the collapse of all cohesive forms of the state in Iraq, someone or something was bound to fill the vacuum. We now see al-Maliki returning from Tehran, to remind us of the identity of the party able to undertake such a task. It might be asked: where are the Arabs? Why do they not take up this task, in two countries that lie at the heart of their aspirations and interests? It is a legitimate question, but the answering it is as depressing as the conditions of Arabs today.
